1 ISRAELOLOGY

Part 3 of 6 by Arnold Fruchtenbaum

ISRAEL PRESENT

(continued)

Introduction This article continues the discussion of Israel’s present theo-logical role. Part 1 of Israel Present dealt with the outworking of God’s Kingdom Program in this age and the relevance of the un-conditional covenants and the Law of Moses in this dispensation.1 It concluded by discussing the Church’s relation-ship to the unconditional Jewish covenants and the purposes of Gentile salvation. This article considers “Israel Present” in rela-tion to the Law and to the Church.

The Mosaic Covenant and the Law of Moses The Unity of the Law of Moses

Two errors have developed in the minds and teachings of many Christians that have contributed to the confusion over the Law of Moses. One is the division of the law into ceremonial, legal, and moral commandments. Based on this separation many surmise that believers are free from the ceremonial and legal commandments, but are still under the moral commandments. The second error is the common belief that the Ten Command-ments are still valid today while the other 603 commandments are not. When confronted by a Seventh Day Adventist, the indi-vidual taking this approach runs into problems concerning the fourth commandment on keeping the Sabbath. All attempts to

1 CTS Journal 5 (July–September 1999) contains: “Israelology: Israel Present. Part 1.”

CTS Journal, vol. 5, #4 (Dec. 1999)

2

rationalize a Sunday-Sabbath (the first day) result in either direct contradiction of Scripture or an inconsistent hermeneutic.

It must be understood that the Scriptures view the Mosaic

Law as a unit. When the word Torah, “law,” refers to the Law of Moses, it is always singular, although it contains 613 command-ments. The same is true of the Greek word nomos in the New Testament. The division of the Law of Moses into ceremonial, legal, and moral parts is convenient for studying the different types of commandments contained within it, but the Scriptures never divide it in this way. Neither is there any scriptural basis for separating the Ten Commandments from the whole 613 and making only the ten perpetual. All 613 commandments are a sin-gle unit comprising the Law of Moses.

The principle of the unity of the Law of Moses underlies James 2:10:

For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is become guilty of all. 2

The point is clear. A person who breaks even one of the 613

commandments is guilty of breaking all of the Law of Moses. This can only be true if the Mosaic Law is a unit. If it were not, the guilt lies only in the particular commandment violated and not in the whole law. In other words, if an individual breaks a legal commandment, he is guilty of breaking the ceremonial and moral laws as well. The same is true of breaking a moral or ceremonial commandment. To bring the point home, if a person eats ham, according to the Law of Moses, he is guilty of breaking the Ten Commandments, although none of the ten says anything about ham. The law is a unit, and to break one of the 613 com-mandments is to break them all.

2 Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture citations are from the American Stan-dard Version (ASV), 1901.

3 A clear understanding of the Law of Moses and its relation-

ship to the believer (Jewish or Gentile) requires viewing it as the Scriptures portray it: A singular unity cannot be divided into parts that have been abolished and parts that remain. Nor, can certain commandments be separated in such a way as to give them a different status from other commandments. The Law of Moses Has Been Rendered Inoperative

The plain teaching of the New Testament is that the death of Christ rendered the Law of Moses inoperative. In other words, the law in its totality no longer has authority over any individual. This is evident first of all from Romans 10:4:

For Christ is the end of the law unto righteousness to every one that believeth.

The Greek word for “end,” telos, can mean either “termina-tion” or “goal.” Here, however, the evidence clearly favors the meaning of “end.” For example, Thayer gives the primary meaning of telos as:

. . . end, i.e. a. termination, the limit at which a thing ceases to be, . . . in the Scriptures also of a temporal end; . . . Christ has brought the law to an end.3

Not only does Thayer give “termination” as the primary meaning of telos, he also includes Romans 10:4 as belonging to that cate-gory of usage. Nor is “goal” listed as a secondary or even tertiary in priority of usage; it is fourth on the list. Arndt and Gingrich give the primary meaning of the verbal form as “bring to an end, finish, complete.”4 The nominal telos has the primary meaning

3 Joseph Henry Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Being Grimm’s Wilke’s Clavis Novi Testamenti, rev. ed. (New York: Harper, 1889; reprint ed.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1962), 619–20. 4 William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2d ed., rev. and ed. by

CTS Journal, vol. 5, #4 (Dec. 1999)

4

of: “end . . . in the sense of termination, cessation.”5 They also list Romans 10:4 under this category and list the meaning of “goal” as third on the list.

In the final analysis, other Scriptures teach both truths: The Messiah is the goal of the law, but He is also the termination of the law. Since Christ is the end of the law, there is no justification through the law (Galatians 2:16). This, was always true of justifi-cation, but since the ending of the law, sanctification or perfection no longer comes through the law (Hebrews 7:19). Thus, it should be quite evident that the law ended in Christ. It cannot function in justification or sanctification. It has been ren-dered inoperative, especially for the believer.

Second, the law was never designed as a permanent

administration but only a temporary one, as is evident in Galatians 3:19:

What then is the law? It was added because of transgres-sions, till the seed should come to whom the promise hath been made.

In context, Paul stated that the Law of Moses was an addition to the Abrahamic Covenant (3:15–18). It was added for the purpose of making sin very clear so that all will know that they have fallen short of God’s standard for righteousness. It was a tempo-rary addition until the seed (Messiah) would come; now that He has come, the law is finished. The addition has ceased its func-tion with the cross.

William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich, and Frederick W. Danker from Walter Bauer’s fifth edition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979), s.v. “τελεϖω,” 810. 5 BAGD, s.v. “τεϖλο∀,” 810.

5 Third, Messiah introduces a new priesthood according to

the Order of Melchizedek, not according to the Order of Aaron. The Mosaic Law provided the basis for the Levitical priesthood, creating an inseparable connection between the Law of Moses and the Levitical priesthood. Thus, a new priesthood required a new law under which it could operate (Hebrews 7:11–18). He-brews 7:11–12 argues that the law permitted only one type of priesthood, the Levitical priesthood. That priesthood could not bring perfection. As Hebrews 9:11–10:18 explains, animal blood cannot bring perfection; only the Messiah’s blood could do that.

The Mosaic Law was the basis for the Levitical priesthood.

Doing away with the Levitical priesthood and replacing it with the new priesthood of Melchizedek, required a new law. During the tenure of the Law of Moses, the Aaronic or Levitical priest-hood alone was valid (Hebrews 7:13–17). Was there, in fact, a change of the law? Hebrews 7:18 states that the Mosaic Law was “disannulled.” Because it is no longer in effect, the new priest-hood after the Order of Melchizedek replaced it. If the Mosaic Law were still in effect, Jesus (a non-Levite) could not function as a priest. The ending of the Mosaic Law allowed Jesus to be a priest after the Order of Melchizedek.

Fourth, Ephesians 2:14–15 indicates that the law was the

middle wall of partition that was now broken down:

For he is our peace, who made both one, and brake down the middle wall of partition, having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; that he might create in himself of the two one new man, so making peace. . . .

As noted earlier, God made four unconditional eternal covenants with Israel. God mediates all of His blessings, both material and spiritual, through these four Jewish covenants. God also had a fifth covenant which was temporary and conditional. The Mosaic Covenant contained the Mosaic Law that temporarily served as a

CTS Journal, vol. 5, #4 (Dec. 1999)

6

wall of partition to keep the Gentiles as Gentiles away from en-joying Jewish spiritual blessings. If the Mosaic Law were still in effect, the wall of partition would still keep the Gentiles away, but the death of Christ broke down the wall of partition. Since the wall of partition was the Mosaic Law, God has done away with the Law of Moses. Gentiles as Gentiles, because of faith, can and do enjoy Jewish spiritual blessings as fellow-partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus.

Galatians 3:23–4:7 provides the fifth line of evidence. This

passage looks upon the law as a pedagogue or a tutor over a mi-nor to bring him to mature faith in the Messiah (3:24). Having become a believer, the minor is no longer under this tutor, that is, the Law of Moses (3:25). This passage clearly teaches that with Messiah’s coming, the law is no longer in effect.

As the sixth line of evidence for the annulment of the Mo-

saic Law, 2 Corinthians 3:2–11 focuses in on the part of the law that most people want to retain, the Ten Commandments. Con-cerning the Law of Moses, verse 7 calls it a ministration of death. Verse 9 calls the law the ministration of condemnation. These are negative, but valid, descriptions. Verses 3 and 7 spot-light the Ten Commandments, the ones that were engraven on stones. Therefore, the Law of Moses, especially as represented by the Ten Commandments, is a ministration of death and a ministration of condemnation. If the Ten Commandments were still in force today, this would still be true. However, they are no longer in force, for verses 7 and 11 state that the law has passed away.

The Greek word used is katargeo, which means “to render

inoperative.” Since the passage focuses on the Ten Command-ments, the thrust is very clear, they have passed away. In fact, the

7 superiority of the Law of Christ is that it will never be rendered inoperative.6

To summarize, the law is a unit comprising 613 command-ments of which all have been rendered inoperative beyond the cross of Christ. The law is in the Old Testament and offers a teaching tool showing God’s standard of righteousness, as well as man’s sinfulness and need of a substitutionary atonement. It can illustrate many spiritual truths about God. It can point the unbe-liever to Christ (Galatians 3:23–25). However, it has completely ceased to function as an authority over the individual and is no longer the rule of life for believers.

What about the moral law? Covenant Theologians generally

try to retain this aspect of the Law of Moses, thereby arguing that the Law of Moses is still in effect. Robert Lightner has spelled out the dispensational view of the moral law:

The moral law of God refers to those eternal principles that reflect the nature of God. Dispensationalists do not believe the moral law of God terminated at Calvary. Neither do they believe . . . that the moral law of God and the Ten Commandments are identical. McQuilkin verbalized dispensational sentiments when he said, “The moral law is not equivalent to the Mosaic Law; however, the Mosaic Law, which was ‘added’ because of transgressions, included the moral law. It included also the ceremonial law, civil law, criminal law, sanitary law, governmental law. But the moral law existed before Moses and continues after the cross.” To do the things forbidden in the Ten Commandments did not first become wrong when the Decalogue was given to Moses and then to the children of Israel at Si-nai. It had always been sinful to do those things. These

6 Dispensationalism does not insist that the Ten Commandments are still in force. Thus, it avoids Covenant Theology’s exegetical gymnastics to circum-vent observing the Sabbath according to the way in which the Ten Commandments actually require.

CTS Journal, vol. 5, #4 (Dec. 1999)

8

basic principles stem from the person of God and are as eternal as He is.7

The moral law did not begin with Moses and did not termi-

nate with Christ. The moral law is not identical to the Law of Moses. It preceded the Law of Moses. Adam and Eve broke the moral law long before Moses. Satan broke the moral law even before Adam. The Law of Moses embodied the moral law as does the Law of Christ, but it did not originate it.

A favorite objection to the dispensational view of the

Law of Moses is an interpretation of Christ’s statement in Matthew 5:17–18:

Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished.

Although Covenant Theologians often cite this passage, they are seldom consistent with it.

It is obvious that Jesus spoke of the Law of Moses. Yet no Covenant Theologian accepts his own thesis, since he must be-lieve in the abolition (in some form) of many commands of the Law of Moses, if not most. The commandments concerning priesthood and sacrifice are only one example: Others can be cited (food laws, clothing laws, etc.). Many of the 613 com-mandments no longer apply as originally written, regardless of the semantics employed: (“supersede,” “brought to greater ful-fillment,” “bringing out its true meaning,” et al.), clearly. If Covenant Theologians limit the Law of Moses to only the moral commandments, then their citation of Matthew 5:17–18 errs. 7 Robert P. Lightner, “A Dispensational Response to Theonomy,” Bibliotheca Sacra 143 (July–September 1986): 240.

9 Verse 19 adds these least commandments, which includes more than merely the moral commandments. The emphasis of verses 17-18 is on the entire law, all 613 commandments. Verse 19 reads:

Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

True, Jesus did come to fulfill the law; but the Law of

Moses did not end at His coming, or during His life, but upon His death. He spoke Matthew 5:17–19 (including verse 19) while He was living. As long as He was living He needed to obey the Law of Moses in the manner that Moses commanded (not as the rabbis had reinterpreted it).

As Mark 7:19b illustrates, while Christ was living, He also

foreshadowed the abolition of the law: This he said making all meats clean (ASV).8 Can it be any clearer than this that at least the dietary commandments have been done away? Again, all Covenant Theologians must admit that many parts of the law no longer apply in the manner Moses prescribed. Have they been done away with or not? To constantly claim that the Law of Moses is still in effect and/or equating it with the Law of Christ, while ignoring the details of that same law, is logically inconsis-tent and theologically fallacious.

The Law of Christ

8 Editor’s note: the ASV follows the Critical Text. The Majority Text treats the verses as a parallel to Matthew 15:17. In this case, Jesus is only speaking of the digestive system protecting against defilement. Even so, the point stands, because Acts 10:11–15 and 11:5–9 pronounce meats clean, while Romans 14:1–3 treats meats as doubtful things. Whether or not Mark 7:19b reads with the Critical Text, the New Testament abolishes the dietary laws.

CTS Journal, vol. 5, #4 (Dec. 1999)

10

The Law of Moses has been disannulled, so believers are now under a new law. Galatians 6:2 calls this new law the Law of Christ; Romans 8:2 refers to it as the Law of the Spirit of Life. This is a brand-new law, totally distinct from the Law of Moses. The Law of Christ contains all the individual commandments from Christ and the Apostles applicable to a New Testament believer.

A simple comparison of details shows that the Law of Christ is not and cannot be the same as the Law of Moses. Four observations are crucial. First, many commandments are the same as those of the Law of Moses. For example, nine of the Ten Commandments are also in the Law of Christ. Second, many are different from the Law of Moses. For example, there is no Sab-bath law now (Romans 14:5; Colossians 2:16) and no dietary code (Mark 7:19; Romans 14:20). Third, the Law of Christ inten-sifies some commandments in the Law of Moses. The Law of Moses said: love thy neighbor as thyself (Leviticus 19:18). This made man the standard. The Law of Christ says: love one an-other, even as I have loved you (John 15:12). This makes the Messiah the standard; He loved us enough to die for us. Fourth, the Law of the Messiah provides a new motivation. The condi-tional Mosaic Covenant was the basis of the Law of Moses, so the motivation was: do, in order to be blessed. The unconditional New Covenant is the basis of the Law of Christ, so the motiva-tion is: you have been (and are) blessed, therefore, do.

The reason so much confusion exists over the relationship

of the Law of Moses to the Law of Christ is that each contains many commandments, which are similar to the other’s. There-fore, many presume the retention of certain sections of the law. However, the law was an indivisible entity, so the similarity of certain commandments cannot imply a partial retention. The Bi-ble contains a number of legal codes, such as the Edenic, Adamic, Noahic, Mosaic, New, and Kingdom. A new code may contain some commandments resembling the previous code, without suggesting that the previous code is still in effect. While certain commandments of the Adamic Code were also found in

11 the Edenic Code, it did not mean that the Edenic Code was still partially in force: It ceased to function with the fall of man. Likewise, the Law of Christ contains many commandments simi-lar to the Law of Moses. For example, the Law of Christ includes nine of the Ten Commandments, but this does not mean that the Law of Moses is still in force.

Christ’s death rendered the Law of Moses inoperative, so we are now under the Law of Christ. There are many different commandments: Under the Law of Moses, pork was forbidden to eat, but under the Law of Christ, no such prohibition exists. There are many similar commandments, but they are nonetheless in two separate systems. Today, if a believer steals, he does not break the Law of Moses, but the Law of Christ. The Sabbath

The Sabbath was the sign, seal, and token of the Mosaic

Covenant. As long as that covenant was in effect, the Sabbath Law was mandatory. Dispensationalism teaches that since the Law of Moses has been rendered inoperative, then the Sabbath command no longer applies. Covenant Theologians, with their hypocritical insistence that the Law of Moses is still in effect, also insist that the Sabbath law applies. However, they totally ignore what Moses wrote about Sabbath-keeping even to the extent of changing its day of observation from Saturday to Sunday, which the Law of Moses would forbid. They break the very rule that they claim to obey.9

Israel and the Church

9 Many Jewish believers also insist on mandatory Sabbath keeping. Though they inconsistently base it on the Law of Moses, they at least retain it as the seventh day of the week. The apologetics for mandatory Sabbath keeping de-rive almost exclusively from the Old Testament for obvious reasons: The New Testament commandment has no command for believers in general or Jewish believers in particular to keep the Sabbath. The New Covenant Scriptures themselves nowhere support the claim that Sabbath observance is part of the New Covenant. In fact, if anything, they would teach the opposite.

CTS Journal, vol. 5, #4 (Dec. 1999)

12

The Evidences for the Distinction of Israel and the Church

The first evidence is that the Church began at Pentecost. The relationship of Spirit-baptism to the Church establishes this. Colossians 1:18 refers to the Church as the Body of Christ. Ac-cording to 1 Corinthians 12:13, entrance into this Body is by Spirit-baptism. Acts 1:5 regards Spirit-baptism as yet future. Acts 11:15–16 shows that Spirit-baptism actually began in Acts 2:1–4, even though Acts 2 does not explicitly mention baptism. Peter, while defending his entrance into a Gentile’s house in Acts 10 to preach the gospel, points out that the Gentiles received the same experience of Spirit-baptism as did the Jews (10:15). Peter states that the Holy Spirit fell on them [the Gentiles] (Acts 10:44–46), as the Holy Spirit once fell on us [Jewish believers] at the begin-ning. The beginning for the Jewish believers was in Acts 2:1–4.10 Peter’s reference to Acts 1:5 in Acts 10:16 shows that Acts 2:1–4 fulfilled the Acts 1:5 prophecy. Since Spirit-baptism is necessary to the existence of the Church, and since this particular ministry of the Holy Spirit only began as of Acts 2, the Church did not exist before then, but only began in Acts 2. Moreover, there is no biblical evidence that the Church began either with Adam or Abraham or that it even existed in the Old Testament. Matthew 16:18’s use of the future tense shows it did not exist during Christ’s earthly ministry either.

The second evidence is that three events in the life of the Messiah were prerequisites to establishing the Church. The first of these was His atoning death: The Church would be built on Messiah’s blood. It is no accident that Jesus began predicting His coming death (Matthew 16:21) immediately after announc-ing that He would build a new entity, the Church (Matthew 16:18). The second event was Christ’s resurrection (Ephesians

10 Note Acts 2:10, which clarifies that the many people from various countries (Acts 2:8–11) were all Jews or proselytes.

13 1:20–23). The Church is the Body, Christ is the head of the Church, but He became its head only by virtue of his resurrec-tion. The third event was His ascension (Ephesians 4:7–11). The Church could only become a functioning entity once the Holy Spirit provided the necessary spiritual gifts. According to this passage, the Holy Spirit could not give these spiritual gifts until after the ascension.

The third evidence is the mystery character of the Church. A mystery is a New Testament truth not revealed in the Old Testa-ment (Ephesians 3:3–5, 9; Colossians 1:26–27). While Scripture does not call the Church itself a mystery, it so labels a number of features that are unique to the Church. There are four such fea-tures: (a) The body concept of Jewish and Gentile believers united into one body is a mystery (Ephesians 3:1–12). (b) The doctrine of Christ indwelling every believer, the Christ in you concept, is a mystery (Colossians 1:24–27; 2:10–19; 3:4, 11). (c) The concept of the Church as the Bride of Christ is a mystery (Ephesians 5:22–32). (d) The Rapture with its corollary events of the resurrection of the dead and the translation of the living is called a mystery in 1 Corinthians 15:50–58. These four mysteries, each relevant only to the Church, show that the Church itself is a mystery and distinct from Israel.

The fourth evidence is that the Church is called the one new man in Ephesians 2:15. Paul mentioned three groups in this con-text (2:11–3:6): Israel, the Gentiles, and the one new man. He distinguishes this one new man from both Israel and the Gentiles. It is comprised of believing members from both: that he might create in himself of the two . . . This one new man is identified as the Church in 2:16 (the body) and 3:6 (same body).

The fifth evidence is that 1 Corinthians 10:32 distinguishes the same three groups (Jews, Greeks, and the Church) from each other. Since this contrast comes well after the establishment of the Church, all three groups coexist simultaneously. The Use of Israel in the New Testament

CTS Journal, vol. 5, #4 (Dec. 1999)

14

The term Israel occurs 73 times in the New Testament

referring each time to national ethnic Israel. It may refer to Jews in general or believing Jews in particular, but it is always ethnic Jews. It never refers to the Church. The Israel of God

Galatians 6:16 is the only passage adduced by all Covenant Theologians as evidence that the Church is the spiritual Israel, or that Gentile believers become spiritual Jews. The verse does not prove any such thing. The passage reads:

And as many as shall walk by this rule, peace be upon them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.

The Book of Galatians is concerned with Gentiles attempting

to attain assurance of salvation through the law. The ones deceiv-ing them were Judaizers, who were Jews demanding adherence to the Law of Moses. To them, a Gentile had to convert to Judaism before he qualified for salvation through Christ. In verse 15, Paul states that salvation is by faith, resulting in the one new man. He also mentions two elements: circumcision and uncircumcision. This refers to two groups of people: Jews and Gentiles, two groups already mentioned by these very terms in 2:7–9.

In verse 16, Paul pronounces a blessing on members of the two groups who would follow this rule of salvation through faith alone. The first group is the them, the uncircumcision, the Gentile Christians to whom and of whom he devotes most of the epistle. The second group is the Israel of God. These are the circumci-sion, the Jewish believers who, in contrast with the Judaizers, followed the rule of salvation by grace through faith alone. Covenant Theologians here ignore the primary meaning of kai (and) which separates the two groups and instead insist on a sec-ondary or lesser meaning (even) in order to blur distinctions

15 within the body of Christ. Thus, the only support of the theory that that the Church is spiritual Israel (or that Gentile believers become spiritual Jews) is a secondary meaning of one word, kai. The secondary meaning hardly applies in this verse containing a blessing for both Jewish and Gentile believers. This kind of cir-cular reasoning persists, despite the remarkable absence of scriptural support.11

Israel Today

The re-establishment of the Jewish State in 1948 has not only thrown a wrench into amillennial thinking, but it has also put a chink into much of premillennial thinking. Amazingly, some Dispensationalists conclude that the present State of Israel has nothing to do with fulfillment of prophecy. On what grounds do they so flagrantly dismiss the present State of Israel? The issue bothering them is that not only do the returning Jews reject Jesus, but the majority of the returnees are atheists or agnostics, not Orthodox Jews. Certainly, Israel today does not fit biblical passages speaking of its return as a regenerated nation. However, this reasoning fails to see that the prophets spoke of two international returns. First, Israel will regather in unbelief in preparation for tribulational judgment. A second worldwide regathering in faith will then follow in preparation for the blessings of the messianic age. Once recognized that the Bible speaks of two distinct regatherings, the present State of Israel easily fits into prophecy.

One passage clearly dealing with a return in unbelief in preparation for judgment is Ezekiel 20:33–38. This passage draws a simile between the Exodus and the future return. At the Exodus, God brought the entire nation of Israel out of the land of Egypt into the Sinai Peninsula. While in the Wilderness of Sinai, God’s plan

11 See S. Lewis Johnson, “Paul and the ‘Israel of God’: An Exegetical and Es-chatological Case-Study,” in Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost, ed. Stanley D. Toussaint and Charles H. Dyer (Chicago: Moody, 1986), 181–96.

CTS Journal, vol. 5, #4 (Dec. 1999)

16

for Israel was to accomplish two things: 1) to give them the Law of Moses; and 2) for them to build the Tabernacle through which much of the law could then be observed. Afterwards, they were to enter the Promised Land. Due to a series of murmurings and rebel-lions, God finally entered into judgment with His people at Kadesh Barnea (on the very border of the Promised Land). The judgment condemned the entire generation (from the age of twenty upward) to forty years of wandering.

After the forty years in the wilderness a whole new na-

tion,12 a nation born as free men in the wilderness and not as slaves in Egypt, was able to enter the land under Joshua. Ac-cording to Ezekiel 20, a similar thing will occur in the future. God will first regather His scattered people from all over the world. That this gathering is not in faith, but in unbelief, is seen from the fact that it is with a mighty hand, and with an out-stretched arm, and with wrath poured out. Verses 33 and 34 repeat this phrase twice. This regathering in unbelief occurs af-ter God pours wrath on the people. It is no accident that the birth of the State of Israel was out of the Nazi Holocaust’s fires. Once this gathering has fully taken place, God will enter into judgment with His people: The Tribulation judgments will purge out the rebels. This will leave a whole new regenerated nation, which will be able to enter the messianic land of Israel under King Messiah. This passage clearly speaks of a regather-ing in unbelief in preparation for judgment.

Another passage, Ezekiel 22:17–22, also speaks of a regath-ering in preparation for judgment. Furthermore, it clearly relates this regathering in unbelief particularly to Jerusalem. While pri-marily dealing with the regeneration of Israel, Ezekiel 36:22–24, nevertheless, makes it clear that a regathering takes place before the regeneration. Isaiah 11:11–12 also deals with the same ques-

12 Only two Egyptian-born men, Joshua and Caleb, survived the wilderness wanderings to enter the land.

17 tion. It refers to the regathering in faith in preparation for the Mil-lennial Kingdom as the second international regathering. So, when did the first one occur? It cannot refer to the Babylonian return because that was a regional and not an international return as the text demands. Hence, the first international regathering is the one that would be in preparation for judgment. It is clear that this passage speaks of two international regatherings while em-phasizing the second one. The second regathering will be in faith, but not the first.

Passages speaking of a regathering in unbelief in prepara-tion for judgment ought to be understood in relation to other passages referring to a regathering in faith in preparation for blessing. Although none of the aforementioned passages have specifically stated that this regathering in unbelief precedes the Tribulation period, Zephaniah 2:1–2 does:

Gather yourselves together, yea, gather together, O nation that hath no shame; before the decree bring forth, before the day pass as the chaff, before the fierce anger of Jehovah come upon you, before the day of Jehovah’s anger come upon you.

The preceding section (Zephaniah 1:14–18) describes some

features of a time called the great day of Jehovah, or as other translations have it, the day of the Lord. This is the most common Old Testament name for the Tribulation. Zephaniah 2:1–2 speaks of an event that occurs before the great day of Jehovah begins. Verse 1 commands the nation of Israel to gather together. The Lord’s anger against the people shows that this is a gathering in unbelief. Verse two uses the word before three times in reference to the preceding passage regarding the Tribulation. One of these uses of before includes the before the day of Jehovah itself. While other texts speak of a regathering in unbelief in prepara-tion for judgment, this passage clearly states that this regathering in unbelief will occur before the Tribulation actually begins. The

CTS Journal, vol. 5, #4 (Dec. 1999)

18

restoration of the Jewish State fulfills prophecies speaking of a regathering in unbelief in preparation for judgment.

The Remnant of Israel and the Olive Tree

The doctrine of the Remnant of Israel teaches that a believ-ing segment of the Jewish people always exists. The New Testament teaches that the Remnant of Israel today consists of Jewish believers in the Messiahship of Jesus. Although the key New Testament passage is Romans 9–11, Paul’s summary of his Israelology, 1 Peter 2:1–10 is another passage on the Remnant of Israel that is relevant to “Israel Present.” 1 Peter 2:1–10

Peter’s words in 1:1–2 indicate that he did not write the epistle to the Church at large, nor to a body of Gentile believers, but to Jewish believers living outside Israel’s borders within a Gentile population. The term Dispersion is a technical Jewish term for Jews who live outside the land of Israel.13

Furthermore, Peter keeps mentioning that his readers live among the Gentiles (2:12; 4:3). While many try to make the term Gentiles mean unbelievers, that is neither its Jewish usage nor even New Testament usage as a simple concordance search shows. Peter uses the term Gentile in its normal meaning as non-Jew as he addresses Jewish believers living among a Gentile population. Expressions such as vain meaning of life handed down from your fathers (1:18) have clear Jewish overtones dis-tinguishing the Jewish believers from their past lives under Rabbinic Judaism. In this section of the epistle, Peter draws a contrast between the remnant and the non-remnant. His purpose 13 All commentators agree that the two other uses, John 7:35 and James 1:1, refer to the Jews of the Diaspora. No reason for making 1 Peter the exception exists, since it fits well into Peter’s calling as the Apostle to the Circumcision (Galatians 2:7–8).

19 is to show that while the non-remnant has failed in its calling, the remnant has not failed.

To summarize, Peter does not draw a distinction between Is-rael and the Church or between unbelieving Jews and believing Gentiles. The distinction is between Jews who believe and Jews who do not believe. His point is that while Israel as a whole failed, the believing Remnant of Israel has not failed, and so the Remnant of Israel fulfills the calling of the nation as a whole. Paul makes the same point in his theology of Israel in Romans 9–11. The Olive Tree

Paul begins by giving the illustration and the principle (Romans 11:16). The connecting for, if, or now provides the rea-son for believing in a future national restoration. The illustration is that of the firstfruit and the root which refer to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the Abrahamic Covenant. They are holy because God separated and consecrated them for a divine purpose. Israel as a nation is the lump and the branches. The principle, based on Numbers 15:17–21, is that the holiness or consecration of the firstfruits and the root passes on to the lump and the branches. Just as the firstfruits sanctify the whole harvest (the lump), even some day all Israel will also be sanctified. The Abrahamic Cove-nant made with the patriarchs is the basis for the expectation of Israel’s future national salvation.

The natural branches are the Jews (Israel) and the wild

olive branches are the Gentiles (11:17). The Olive Tree in this passage does not represent Israel or the Church, but it repre-sents the place of spiritual blessing. The root of this place of blessing is the Abrahamic Covenant. Paul makes the same point that he made in Ephesians 2:11–16 and 3:5–6. The Gen-tiles, by their faith, have now become partakers of Jewish spiritual blessings. This Olive Tree represents the place of blessing, and now Gentiles have been grafted into this place of

CTS Journal, vol. 5, #4 (Dec. 1999)

20

blessing and made partakers of its sap, the Jewish spiritual blessings as contained in the Abrahamic Covenant.

The Gentiles are not taker-overs, but rather partakers of

Jewish spiritual blessings. Paul spoke of grafting of wild olive branches into a good olive tree. Critics of Paul claim that he misunderstood horticulture, because grafting a wild olive branch into a good olive tree would be unnatural. That is exactly Paul’s point. Likewise, it is unnatural to graft Gentiles into this place of blessing originating from the Abrahamic Covenant. Paul does not regard this as normal; he says that it is contrary to nature (Romans 11:24). Normally, such a graft would be unfruitful. The point is that God is doing something unnatural: He brings Gentiles into the place of blessing based on the unconditional Jewish covenants.

Next Paul warns (11:18–22) that the basis of Gentile blessing is faith, not merit. If the Gentiles are to remain in the place of blessing, they must continue in faith. Israel’s failure should teach them a lesson. He does not deal with individuals as such (i.e. individual believers and unbelievers), but with nationalities of Jews and Gentiles. The Jews were in the place of blessing as a nationality, but because of their unbelief, they were broken off. Now Gentiles are to be found in the place of blessing; but if they fail in faith, they also will be broken off from the place of blessing. This is not a loss of salvation, but a removal from the place of blessing. The warning is that the basis of Gentile blessing is faith, not merit. He warns Gentiles against boasting over the natural branches, for the wild branches are not self-sustained, but are sustained by the root: the Abrahamic Covenant, a Jewish covenant.

—To be continued—

21 Arnold Fruchtenbaum earned a B.A. degree from Cedarville College, a Th.M. from Dallas Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from New York University. He is the founder of Ariel Ministries in Tustin, CA, a min-istry to Jewish people around the world; he holds Bible conferences in most English speaking countries. Arnold is also an adjunct professor at Chafer Theological Seminary. CTS accepts Dr. Fruchtenbaum’s bi-annual five-week study tour of Israel for credit. His e-mail address is arielhq@pacbell.net.